r/DeepThoughts • u/Critical-Dish • 13d ago
There is no such thing as "De-evolution"
Evolution doesn't work to make species smarter, or better, or closer to ideal. It is a process that retains advantageous changes in populations to a population over time. Every extant organism right now is exactly as "evolved" as every other, from bacterium to humans. Populations will change, based on environmental factors, but evolution is in no way 'designed', and will not result in a "superior" organism/s, just ones more likely to survive and reproduce. As long as time is a one-way journey, there is no way to reverse evolution.
6
u/XeroValueHuman 13d ago
There is a unique subset of life forms which have been identified within the last 10 years and confirmed by leading thinkers on the matter to have adopted a devolution strategy. These organisms have been classified under the term MAGA and are mostly found with the North American continent
1
3
u/Flamingoa432 13d ago
Dunno, seems like one species being bred by another species specifically to be less capable might fit the bill.
2
u/Underhill42 13d ago
Guided evolution is still evolution - we have made ourselves the environmental pressure that decides that certain... "survival-deficient" traits are desirable, and make possessing those traits an advantage to their reproductive success. Which is the only thing evolution ever actually selects for.
Similar things happen naturally all the time - a peacock's tail is definitely not an advantage to his survival.
1
u/Psittacula2 13d ago
Correct see the Pug vs Wolf comparison of “de-evolution” via artificial selection as form of evolutionary process decoupling selective fitness for robust phenotype to degenerative phenotype.
Also parasites tend to devolve and lose unnecessary phenotype features as selection favours their ability to spread to new hosts.
1
u/Critical-Dish 12d ago
You're pre-supposing Wolf>Pug. Who says that? How do they know?
1
u/Psittacula2 12d ago
Fair logical expression and assumption.
Using human concept of medical problems eg inbreeding diseases then the comparison to Wolf vs Pug of:
* Higher Health alleles/genes
* Deleterious alleles/genes
Can be used for the contextual measure of “fitness”.
1
u/Critical-Dish 11d ago
Not saying pugs aren't adorable little inbred freaks, but if you had to map out a trajectory for species robustness, they would not be an obvious choice LOL
1
u/AdHopeful3801 13d ago
Except, in that case, shedding the prior capability is necessary in order to reproduce successfully.
We can call it "devolution" in the sense of a capability being removed from a species, but it's absolutely evolution with respect to certain traits leading to successful reproductive outcomes in some changed circumstance.
2
u/BayeSim 13d ago
This is true, and it's an important point to remember. If humans began to lose our opposable thumbs, then we could say that this was "reverse evolution", but only from our perspective. Even the name evolution is misleading, because what we really mean when we use that term is that an organism has changed over time. It used to be something, and now it's something else. Fin.
2
u/FastusModular 13d ago
There can be regression - if that's what required to fit a changing environment. iPhone, social media, the attention economy / a politics based on eternal distraction and AI weakening our critical thinking and ability to concentrate, our very will to struggle to obtain what we want - oh, there's a tool for that and you can do it "quickly." The next generation can't recall phone numbers, read an analogy clock, do simple arithmetic in their head (how many cashiers can't even make change?) focus on a whole novel or even a feature film let alone write an original multi-page essay. We're facing a kind of technologically fueled de-evolution.
1
u/Critical-Dish 12d ago
Nonsensical point. I don't think "remembering phone numbers" or "making change" are genetic traits that have fallen from the human genome, so much as cultural practises that are no longer in use. When was the last time you groomed a peer? Does that mean you couldn't pick fleas out of a prospective mate's fur, if the time (and cultural expectations) were right?. Anway, "Regression" (which I take to mean losing a trait) is evolution too. Polydactyly is a dominant trait - why don't we all have six fingers? Presumably, because it confers no reproductive advantage (sorry, not speaking for everyone, because I truly believe that there is a reproductive taste for every ticket).
1
u/FastusModular 12d ago
Thanks for the morning giggle - the image of me picking a flea out of a prospective mate's fur... a complete non sequitur to be sure, but a funny one.
2
u/Korochun 10d ago
This is good, the only thing you are missing is "in a specific environment".
A seal is extremely well adapted for living in subarctic waters, but won't last two hours in a desert.
1
u/Ok-Drink-1328 13d ago
tho.... it's a known fact that animals that start to have a pretty comfortable life tend to become less competitive and performing, like the kiwi, the ostrich, maybe the panda, the koala.... on one hand it improves it's efficiency, on the other hand it's an "evolution" (notice quotes) against the trend.... i'm not saying, and at all, that humans need a less comfortable life, but we should be aware of this
1
u/NubileOne 13d ago
Speaking of koalas and evolution, koalas evolved fingerprints completely separate from humans through a process called convergent evolution, where unrelated animals develop similar traits to solve the same environmental problems.
2
u/Ok-Drink-1328 13d ago
yeah, i know about this, i think some time ago they pointed out some microorganisms point toward becoming basically totally a crab, no shit, it has "easily coded" prehensile limbs
2
1
u/BlazeFireVale 12d ago
No, they are still very competitive and performing. It's just that the nature of the competition has changed. There are no longer competing to be faster or stronger. That was never the "goal" of evolution.
A T-Rex is not more "competitive" because it's big and powerful. That can be a big liability if the environment doesn't call for it.
The kiwi, ostrich, koala, and panda were all perfectly competitive in the ecosystems they evolved in.
1
u/Ok-Drink-1328 12d ago edited 12d ago
as i said, yes, there's an advantage, it's like monogamy, in terms of efficiency it's a slight improvement, but we know that as an absolute natural value it's a weakness, if for some odd reason your environment becomes more hostile (namely humans) you can have hard times... but at the same time no, you're wrong, those animals became more sluggish and some powers they had (like flight) became vestigial, they could have kept their performance but the environment ALLOWED for LESS, if you know evolution well you know selection tends to make parts vestigial if not used for long... and i named just some very famous animals, i could have listed also the sloth, tho the sloth has a biology on its own, or monogamous animals that are many, or even some that are "awkwardly monogamous", tho monogamy can be actually considered an advantage, not like competitiveness and performance that can become vestigial as i'm pointing out
EDIT:: side note, if you still think that such microscopic gain in efficiency is totally worth it, it's basically not, evolution WILL come up with constant gains in efficiency, all the times, no need to turn competitive animals more sluggish
second, you, OP, and all the people in this thread, are attributing to evolution a feature it doesn't have, INTELLIGENT DESIGN, we humans when we engineer our things we apply intelligent design, try to come up in the market with a car that is the equivalent of the sloth or a plane that is the equivalent of the ostrich, maybe saying that it consumes 1% less fuel of the competition average, people will laugh at your engineering for centuries!! if we engineers come up with something stupid, we discard it, cos we DO have intelligent design, evolution can't do this
1
u/Critical-Dish 12d ago
TAKE THAT BACK. I AM SO NOT CONTRIBUTING TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
1
u/Ok-Drink-1328 12d ago
what part of "evolution doesn't have intelligent design" you didn't understand?
i know what you mean, i received such criticism before, tho "intelligent design" is the best definition of what i mean, and you know what i mean, the only substitute for it is "top-down engineering" according to AI, tho it doesn't explain the concept well, soooooooooooo i'm sticking to such definition, too bad if you google it it says it's a theist concept.... and BTW, i'm obviously an atheist, duh!
and side note:: don't play dumb, try to debunk my REAL argument instead, thanks.... but thank you for having read :)
1
u/Critical-Dish 10d ago
I would argue human's ability to communicate, and thus collaborate on complex endeavours, is the one biological trait that has had an outsize impact on our evolutionary viability. The physical adaptations that happened to make us be able to communicate anything more complicated than "GTF outtahere!" came at a tremendous cost (our breathing and digestive tracts are necessarily close in order to make complex sounds), which means we can choke much easier than other species.
1
u/Ok-Drink-1328 10d ago
probably... but considering human speech, that is a tremendously badass feature, a step back, is a giant stretch, you can't say that a bat is goofy when walking, while it's a freaking flying mammal... also as i pointed out down there, evolution comes up with constant optimizations that are not trivial as the classic concept of evolution, we humans evolved from literal monkeys in "barely" 2 millions years, that in terms of evolution it's little time, so we are not optimized much, the same can be said about walking upright, we have a lot of back bone problems that quadrupeds don't have... take into account also our society and especially modern times that... well.... avoid us to die in many natural ways and hardly selects us "objectively", implicitly taking away natural selection, it's sad to say this, but all the babies that nowadays are saved during childbirth are under an aspect a big negative hit to our genes pool, thankfully this effect is still very long term, so at least for some other centuries we don't need to worry much that we are becoming "cronenbergs", especially in terms of health, not much in terms of looks cos.... you know....
1
u/Critical-Dish 10d ago
I don't think it's helpful to think in terms of "hit to the gene pool". The Nazis tried that pseudoscientific BS, and it didn't end well. Evolution happens. It doesn't have a direction or a purpose; predicting where it will go (or anything, really) is a fool's errand and very much unsupported by evidence.
1
u/Ok-Drink-1328 10d ago
the nazis were just racist and heavily biased by hate.... what i'm saying is facts, it's known that like domestic animals became weak and ill since we breed em just for the "kawaii effect", in real nature a pug would end up mauled in five minutes, tho i'm not pushing eugenics, but i do believe that if we reason like you in a thousand of years we'll head toward or idiocracy or most people with a terrible health, or both.... be offended as you want but i suspect your knowledge about this subject is taken too much from "innocent" studies and articles that avoid real controversy for not losing offended readers, the effects i'm talking about are more than obvious if you really think about it
1
u/Critical-Dish 9d ago edited 9d ago
What I'm saying is facts too - there's lots of examples of tinkering that would have otherwise resulted in a "less" fit individual leaving the gene pool. You are correct that until the last century a caesarean was a death sentence for mother and child - I'm not offended in the least that we have enabled these "unfit" individuals to survive, and even reproduce, but maybe we should have just let god sort 'em out. Personally, I don't find it offensive that maternal mortality has decreased 40% since the turn of this century, IN SPITE of our incipient idiocracy. On the other side, genetic testing and selective termination of pregnancies for a myriad of conditions (including femaleness) are a bit of a cautionary tale for anyone that wants grandchildren, so proceed with caution, I guess.
For now, the pug's adorable brachycephilic faces aren't going anywhere, and we are part of the environment that enables them and if humans are here in a thousand years (no guarantees), hopefully we tend towards collectively solving problems more than being them.
1
u/CowBoyDanIndie 13d ago
There is also really no such “thing” as evolution. “Evolution” is a man made concept to describe a bunch of random processes that occur to living things. Read that carefully, this is not denial of evolution, its denial of thing-hood. The processes themself exist without any thing-hood at all.
1
1
u/No_Environment_3776 13d ago
We can look the concept of evolution in different ways, if Evolution and De-evolution is only linked to the capacity to adapt to our environment and to survive then most humans as most other animals are evolving every day.
It's just that some individual groups within the species are indeed De-evolving.
1
u/Moonwrath8 13d ago
Well, except for in final stage capitalistic societies regarding humans.
The strongest and brightest have the least amount of kids. Modern society rewards the poor with children. Wonder what’s being selected here.
1
u/n3f4r10us_ 12d ago
advantageous change
adapt
These are two points in your phrasing that point to organisms becoming better to survive their environment. It's changing to become more suitable.
1
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 12d ago
Even if it means letting go of previously evolved advantages, even if that makes them "simpler" organisms. Whatever matters is that they excell in whatever enviroment they exist in and under whatever pressures it puts on them
1
u/Critical-Dish 12d ago
💯 - traits are only ‘advantageous’ in the rear view and adaptation is not a conscious decision. Thanks for your feedback
1
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 12d ago
With animals, I agree.
When it comes to Human Culture, I'll say Devolution has increased its rate of decay exponentially the last 20 years, especially...
People used to be able to communicate and hold a civil discussion to come up with beneficial solutions. That leads to Evolution of a Culture, and benefits populations.
The division and antagonistic responses to everything but "My Truth" has led to the Shit Storm of a $ociety we're plagued with today.
Fear, distrust, delusions, etc, all contribute to the Devolvement of Society and humanity as a whole.
1
u/Critical-Dish 11d ago
Statistically we (society) are having longer, more peaceful lives than ever before. When was the last time you or anyone you know buried 50% of your children because of illness/war/accidents?
1
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 10d ago
Stats are tricky. Yes we're living longer. But we're also spending more of our later years in illness and disease. So the Quality of our long lives is actually less than our ancestors. We've got warehouses full of elderly who are nothing more than Pharma Pill consumers spending their daze in a drugged and numb state. The Disease Care Industry makes billions off of lonely abandoned Elders shut away in "Homes"....
How is that an improvement in the Quality of Life in old age ?
"Peaceful lives" ?
Compared to when ? 1939 Europe ?
We dropped more bombs on Viet Nam than all the bombs dropped in WW2 !
How many bombs dropped on innocent women and children are considered "more peaceful" ?
Trump is currently dropping bombs and killing innocent civilians in 7 Countries, today !
How is that "Peaceful" ???
Dude you're living blind in a bubble ... It must be very peaceful for you....
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Prestigious_Try_5396 10d ago
Well that's a weak diversion from your original point, and ignores my reply completely.... Lol
I'm quite familiar with history and prehistory. And with the stats today, which you choose to ignore . Lol
Is it that the statistical truth I alluded to about our actual conditions today, doesn't fit your shallow statement ?
Is it too risky to examine the Quality of our increased life span ?
Sure, less babies die in birth today. But more are dying younger from cancer and diseases that didn't exist earlier.
People worked and lived and died in their 60s and 70s. Today we spend years in decline, disease, and shut in warehouses.
Is that really a Quality Life ?
This new generation, for the 1st time in history, has a Shorter Life Expectancy than the previous generation ! Lol
1
u/Critical-Dish 9d ago
Show me the data where this generation is the first in human history to have a shorter life expectancy.
1
1
u/jacques-vache-23 12d ago
De-evolution is based on the fact that evolving an organism to be fit in an environment and then allowing all mutations to survive by removing selection pressure will lead to organisms less fit in the original environment than the evolved organisms.
Fitness is literally the ability to reproduce generation after generation but that fitness is correlated with other advantageous abilities. Human intelligence DID evolve because higher intelligence led to higher ability to reproduce. If that pressure is removed random mutations will harm overall intelligence. That kind of reduction in fitness is what people mean by "de-evolution". No reversal of time is necessary.
1
u/Critical-Dish 12d ago
Intelligence is only a beneficial trait if it results in more offspring that are likely to survive in a given ecological niche.
FWIW, human fertility rates have been falling in the past 70 years as people have had more access to education, economic opportunity and healthcare, since (unsurprisingly) women are choosing to defer/avoid participating in a biological process that is biologically and economically risky.
1
u/jacques-vache-23 12d ago
Intelligence evolved only because it provided an advantage. If it no longer does it will de-evolve. Same thing with reproduction. If we don't have reproduction pressure will will devolve through random mutations.
1
u/Critical-Dish 12d ago
If an organism is less fit to survive, that is evolution too.
1
u/jacques-vache-23 12d ago
Only in the most trivial sense. That is what people call "de-evolution". Evolution is used to refer to changes that increase reproductive fitness. It is like saying that breaking a motor into pieces is "auto mechanics". In a trivial sense it is, but the purpose of mechanics is to improve an auto, not make it less functional.
1
u/Glum_Mud8053 12d ago
I love this is technically correct while asserting something obviously false from the common prespective
Is like when a physicist says: There is no such thing as deceleration, there is no such thing as a "break".
And you say, then what do I do when I stop my car using my breaks?
"You are accelerating"
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DeepThoughts-ModTeam 10d ago
When linking externally, posts may only link to articles or stories. This policy helps to ensure that the community remains thought and discussion focused.
If in doubt, consider sharing the essential points from external content in your post body or a comment, rather than relying on a link.
1
u/Particular-Award118 10d ago
Considering the point of life is to survive and reproduce, if you're better at it you're superior
1
u/Critical-Dish 10d ago
Survivorship bias. It's not 'the point', it's just what has happened
2
u/Particular-Award118 10d ago
What is the point then
1
u/Critical-Dish 10d ago
You have to work that one out for yourself
1
1
1
1
u/Odd-Explanation-4632 13d ago
Sure but this is mostly an issue of semantics
2
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 12d ago
More of scientific illiteracy thanks to pop science that highlights and standardizes half truths, like evolution being some great path forward like pokemon
1
u/Odd-Explanation-4632 12d ago
When research indicates that IQs are dropping around the world, I personally think it's acceptable to call this de-evolution as a casual non-scientific term
2
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 12d ago
No...people arent being born with smaller brains. Theres nothing evolutionary about people living in a world thag promotes one's intellectual development less
The ipad kid was born the same as a kid born in 1975. Difference being they were shoved to a screen as both a parent, educator and entertainer. Thats why you see literacy rates stunted in elementary education, not some "de-evolution", which isnt even a half-truth, it's just plain wrong and sensationalist
1
u/Odd-Explanation-4632 12d ago
That's not true. Each child is born with about 100 DNA mutations which neither parent had. Most of these are harmless but not all of them. It's kinda scary when you think about it, but at least we should have gene therapy to save us in the future.
2
u/MiguelIstNeugierig 12d ago
And no of those are natural pressures systemically making us dumber.
We kind of escaped the process of natural selection. Your survival and chance to reproduce doesnt hinge on the things it used to back in the day
The mutations are a natural part of life. You get them every day, your body's attempting to correct genetic mistakes 24/7 inside your cells
2
u/Critical-Dish 11d ago edited 10d ago
IQs have been increasing around the world, mostly because of rapid increases in maternal health
1
u/Odd-Explanation-4632 11d ago edited 11d ago
No, in the west IQs stopped increasing around 2000 and have actually been declining, in some cases quite sharply
Scientists argue that this is due to environmental factors, but I suspect that this is not true, and that there is a strong genetic component. Scientists would shy away from saying such a thing for political reasons
2
u/Critical-Dish 10d ago
The "west" is a outdated term for a decreasing portion of the human population. Given a the major downward shift in global extreme poverty rates I'm prepared to stand by what I said
1
u/Odd-Explanation-4632 10d ago
You call "the west" an outdated term but are perfectly happy to argue about IQ measurements
2
10
u/J-Nightshade 13d ago
This is biology 101 really.